As for the 'special duty' - no thanks. We're just not interested in anything so grandiose. We're happy enough being the 'Hobbits' to Orthodoxy's 'Middle Earth'. Let the mighty back East do their mighty deeds.

Nah, that was just a series of unfortunate events - an eccentric and his servant muddle off into the desert while a freak stalks them. The freak bites off a finger and falls into a lava tube. Mighty deeds are like Kings returning, winning (or losing) battles; things which Big Folk do. Hobbits stay home and mind their own business. It takes a 'fool of a Took' or meddling Wizards to interfere with that (and, like I say - best to leave the affairs of Wizards ... or Bishops, alone.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

As for the 'special duty' - no thanks. We're just not interested in anything so grandiose. We're happy enough being the 'Hobbits' to Orthodoxy's 'Middle Earth'. Let the mighty back East do their mighty deeds.

Quote

"Man!" cried Pippin, now thoroughly roused. "Man! Indeed not! I am a hobbit, and no more valiant than I am a man, save perhaps now and again by necessity. Do not let Gandalf deceive you."

"Many a doer of great deeds might say no more," said Ingold. "But what is a hobbit?"

Well, sure - that happens with any issue. I think the Deacon covered how ECs and WRO *are* similar - which is pretty much limited to being a minority and often misunderstood in their own confessions.

I think that depends on which EC churches you are comparing WRO with. WRO bears little resemblance to the Ukrainian and Romanian Catholic Churches, and even less resemblance to the Melkite Patriarchate (and the non-byzantine EC patriarchates, if we're including them in the discussion).

But if you consider the Hungarian Catholic Church (or the Slovak, Albanian, Italo-Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, etc. Catholic Churches) you'll see greater similarities with the WRO. (Granted one difference is that the Hungarian Catholic Church has its own bishop, whereas the WRO does not, at this time; but that bishop is a suffragan of the Metropolitan of Rome, i.e. the pope.)

These types of things used to offend me too. But then I learned the history of the Eastern Catholics, and that all changed. The reason many Orthodox don't like Eastern Catholics is because they came in and proselytized in Orthodox areas using the same Liturgy as the Orthodox (which ultimately led many Orthodox to believe, oh, they are the same as the Orthodox, which is not the case at all). This is why many are not happy with the Eastern Catholics. However, today, at least in America I think, the Eastern Catholics lead many Catholics to Orthodoxy today (including myself). I also think a better way to say this would be, we Orthodox would prefer if these Eastern Catholic Churches would convert to Orthodoxy, considering that the Eastern Catholics came from Orthodoxy and got all their practices from Orthodoxy and many pray to Orthodox saints (just as we would like everyone of every religion to convert to Orthodoxy, thus getting rid of all heresy, but as we know, there will always be those who oppose Christ and His Church).

Wow. and the disrespect continues. The fact of the matter is that they are Catholic now and want to be Catholic!!! We are not going to force them out of the Church to please people who are not members of Christ's Church!!!

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Wow. and the disrespect continues. The fact of the matter is that they are Catholic now and want to be Catholic!!! We are not going to force them out of the Church to please people who are not members of Christ's Church!!!

Once again you missed the point. I don't know if you purposely come on this forum to create problems or what. I never said ANYTHING about forcing them out of the Catholic Church. What I said is that many Orthodox would like the Eastern Catholics to convert back to Orthodoxy (ie, not Catholics forcing the Eastern Catholics out but the Eastern Catholics voluntarily converting). Many are told that the Eastern Catholics are Orthodox, and that the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, but everything else is exactly the same. Some do for sure want to be Catholic you are right I know some Eastern Catholics like this; however, many, like my old Melkite priest, believe that Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism are the same thing, which couldn't be further from the Truth. Thus, Orthodox are upset because the Eastern Catholics preach such things, that we are the same thing, etc, because this is not true at all. Just because we have similar liturgies doesn't mean we are the same. The Anglicans have a similar liturgy to Catholicism yet the two are not the same (and Catholics were upset too from what I remember reading from history that the Anglicans, when they broke off from Catholicism, had the same liturgy as the Catholics did, and thus attracted many people in England to Anglicanism because the liturgies looked the same; many clearly didn't know the difference of theologies between the two churches).

Your disrespect aside young one, whether or not you or anyone else want the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist, they do and we are not getting rid of them.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I am not ruining a discussion. Thanks for being so rude, btw. Apparently, I am not allowed to have an oppion.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

As a former Melkite, now Orthodox, I can tell you that the current situation with the eastern Catholic Churches is not the way back to unity. Check out the words of Patriarch Gregory as cited by Welkodox. Others have pointed out that outside the patriarchial territories, the Patriarch has no authority. Melkite bishops in the United States are appointed by the Vatican. Until recently, the Vatican also forbid all eastern Catholic bishops in the United States from ordaining married men to the priesthood. The situation is still ambiguous and my understanding that the last time Bishop Elya ordained a married man, it was unofficially frowned upon. Also, look at what is happening to the Ruthenian Liturgy.

I wrote about these eastern catholic troubles in the States on the Swedish forum Katolsk Vision(The Catholic Vision). Somebody there was interested to learn some more...www.geocities.com/katolskvision/ (Swedish/English discussions)

After thinking it over some more, I seem to be coming to opinion that there is a significant difference between ECs and WRO with respect to a "unique role" or "special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians".

I began reconsidering my earlier conclusions because when I read JSOrthodoxy's post (quoted above) a second time, it occurred to me that I'd never heard anyone make a comparable statement about the WRO. Indeed, it's pretty much unimaginable to me that anyone would say that the current situation with the WRO Churches is not the way back to unity, because the WRO don't have enough autonomy, etc.

-PJ

P.S. I do certainly think that ECs and WRO each have an important role to play with respect to Christian unity; it just isn't the same role.

I love the Melkite Church deeply and I respect the patrimony of the Roman Church and its Traditions, but I think that significant reforms in the Vatican and in its treatment of the eastern Churches are necessary before there can be reunion.

Here again, I think that JSOrthodoxy's statement makes sense; yet it would make no sense to me if someone said "before there can be reunion, there must be significant reforms in the way the WRO Churches are treated by their fellow Orthodox."

I still don't see how the Hungarian church is like WRO. The situations are still so different. But, again - if you would like to expand on what you mean - I'm just not seeing the similarities.

With regards to WRO and Christian unity - the 'role' we have to play is one almost entirely within the Church. It is not an 'ecumenical activity' in the sense that Moderns in the Protestant and Catholic churches have understood 'ecumenical'. However, the relation to Christian unity lies within the witness that WRO has to Orthodoxy being the Church, and not merely a quaint ethnic sort of Christianity, or whatever nonsense heterodox polemicists want to say about Her. Otherwise, our role is probably that of preserving a Western tradition that many other Westerners either despise or don't care about. Giving a home to the Orthodox who are Westerners is also important - as they've been forced out of every other Western confession We couldn't remain where we were, which I'm not sure the ECs could all say the same? So, the WRO witness involves differences that matter, differences in liturgy, praxis, theology, discipline and morals.

I suppose it matters how folk expect the future to go, as to how they view the Western Rite. If they expect Orthodoxy to capitulate to Rome in short order, we're a bit of an embarassment. Our liturgy and praxis would be most unwelcome (we're more conversative than the FSSP, for instance.) For those Orthodox who have dreams of their own jurisdictions absorbing the others - WRO can also be an uncomfortable spot. Either we spoil their plans (ie, we don't fit into how they want everyone to do things, we represent some Anglo-Saxon/Roman 'boogey-man' that immigrants fear, or they fear we might increase in numbers.) Some of our number have dreamed out loud about a Western Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West - the reactions from some had been towards the automatic expectation that any such Bishop would repeat all the history of Rome (claiming universal jurisdiction, infallibility, etc.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

I still don't see how the Hungarian church is like WRO. The situations are still so different. But, again - if you would like to expand on what you mean - I'm just not seeing the similarities.

I'll have to think about this some more. It's possible that I was focusing too much on one particular characteristic -- namely, the Melkite, Ukrainian, and Romanian Catholic Churches having patriarchs and major-archbishops, whereas the neither the WRO nor the Hungarian Catholic Church do.

Some of our number have dreamed out loud about a Western Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West

I wondered whether that might come up.

It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that whereas Rome has so far objected little to the WRO, she definitely wouldn't take too kindly to a Western Orthodox Bishop being named as "Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West" -- in much the same way that the Orthodox didn't take too kindly to the crusaders appointing a new "Patriarch of Constantinople".

However, the relation to Christian unity lies within the witness that WRO has to Orthodoxy being the Church, and not merely a quaint ethnic sort of Christianity, or whatever nonsense heterodox polemicists want to say about Her.

On this particular point, I have to say that you'll find many ECs who would say similar things about "the witness that EC has to Catholicism being the Church". For example, I just recently heard someone say that it's impossible to claim the Vatican II wasn't an ecumenical council, because of the ECs participation in it.

I think we all agree that a certain "rival" patriarch was created so that there would be a certain "ecumenicity" and for those who wish to keep traditions while joining the faith they agree with.

Now, keeping proselytism aside, which is something that happens on any side of the coin, I think one should also look at the history of the OO's and factor this in. For the OO's, especially Syria and Egypt, we had rival EO denominations, and we still do, although we live much more peacefully today (in fact, we're practically sister churches). The point is we should never ever fool ourselves in thinking that these rivals were created for unity's sake. They were always created as rivals. This is the truth that we have to face. EO's and OO's in Egypt and Syria faced it, and they now love each other.

It's a fact that people have to accept and it can't go away. If one day the Eastern Catholic churches reach a faith agreement, where it is possible for one communion to occur, then we should just accept one another for now. I'm not saying that there should be two or three patriarchs in one city, but I'm saying that this is an inevitability that needs to be dealt with for now, and then when unity occurs can be fixed later.

Perhaps, I can also give a local example. In our Coptic Archdiocese here in NJ/NY area, we have two cities where congregations created rival churches, two in Staten Island and two in Bayonne. What was the solution for the split? Let's create two, and if it works out, then in the end we would have two peaceful churches. While the history may be bad, and I'm not saying ignore the history, the future should be towards reconciliation and a way in which history should never repeat itself. As the EO and OO churches of Alexandria and Antioch look at each other, we see each other not anymore as heretics, but as successful churches, defending Orthodoxy side-by-side.

Therefore, I think the existence of the Eastern Catholic churches should never be an impediment to dialogue. They're there now, and we should just have to accept their existence until we can reach a solution.

God bless.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Therefore, I think the existence of the Eastern Catholic churches should never be an impediment to dialogue. They're there now, and we should just have to accept their existence until we can reach a solution.

As far as accepting their existence vs. expecting them to "disappear", I agree absolutely. I'd like to point out, however, that accepting their existence doesn't preclude the possibility of "tweaking" the status quo a little -- increasing or decreasing, as appropriate, the amount of autonomy that EC churches have; and possibly even promoting some of the churches in rank (i.e. eparchal to metropolitan, metropolitan to major-archepicospal, or major-archepicospal to patriarchal -- although I suspecting that Rome doesn't intend on promoting any more EC churches to patriarchal rank).

You make some good points. I only regret that I have few questions/comments to make in reply.

You mention that the OO churches and their EO-counterparts have good relations nowadays. Am I right in thinking this is also true of the relations between OO and OC Churches?

At the moment, yes, there are good relations between the OO and OC (at least speaking for Coptic, not sure about others). But this is not the same relationship as OO and EO counterparts, especially in Alexandria and Antioch. Both EO and OO Churches of these cities have accepted one another's sacraments completely, that any Coptic closer to an EO church for example does not need special permission to take communion at an EO Church if necessary. This all started with the acceptance of marriage, and now it's pretty much set that we look at each other virtually as sister churches in communion.

With Coptic Catholics, we are simply committed to further dialogue and peace.

Quote

As far as accepting their existence vs. expecting them to "disappear", I agree absolutely. I'd like to point out, however, that accepting their existence doesn't preclude the possibility of "tweaking" the status quo a little -- increasing or decreasing, as appropriate, the amount of autonomy that EC churches have; and possibly even promoting some of the churches in rank (i.e. eparchal to metropolitan, metropolitan to major-archepicospal, or major-archepicospal to patriarchal -- although I suspecting that Rome doesn't intend on promoting any more EC churches to patriarchal rank).

God bless,PJ

Well, at the moment, the Coptic Catholic leader is actually considered an "Archbishop." If he is called "Pope" or "Patriarch," I don't think this should change the relatioship. The hopes of the future of EO and OO counterparts is to unite the dioceses into simply one Orthodox Church of Alexandria and one Orthodox Church of Antioch, and where the present bishops of both sides are united into one Synod of each. Presently, both "Popes" of Alexandria pretty much accept each other as rightful Orthodox successors of St. Mark and "Popes."

I think at the moment, OC's and OO's need to settle issues of faith before talking about uniting or episcopal ranking.

God bless.

Mina

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

At the moment, yes, there are good relations between the OO and OC (at least speaking for Coptic, not sure about others). But this is not the same relationship as OO and EO counterparts, especially in Alexandria and Antioch. ...

Good clarification -- my statement was more suggestive than I meant it to be. (I meant it more as "better relations than the EO and EC churches typically have".)

I've been thinking (this isn't directly related to either Oriental Orthodox or WRO, although it does have to do with "uniatism") ...

An interesting thing about the Union of Brest is number 15: "If in the future someone of our Religion [i.e. the UGCC] should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope."

Now (unless I'm very much mistaken) this is no longer the case, i.e. ECs are sometimes allowed to switch to the "Roman Church". Nevertheless, it is still true that Eastern Catholics oppose any sort of unia-within-unia (if I may use that phrase), vis-à-vis latinizations.

An example of this is a conversation on the byzcath forum last summer. Dr. Alex Roman, responding to a question from another poster about "problems with the Uniates in control" said

Quote

As for the uniates, certainly they exercise a great role in Ukraine and elsewhere in the UGCC - their influence is supported by the impression that they represent the most "patriotic" form of the Greek-Catholic tradition (that was put down by the Soviets and the ROC in 1946).

When it was pointed out the calling someone "uniate" was considered offensive and against the rules of the forum, Dr. Alex defended their use of this term by saying

Quote

In using the term "Uniates," we are NOT referring to all Greek-Catholics, but to a certain mentality that accepts a kind of spiritual second-class citizenship as "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite" and toward Latinizations as "necessary" badges of one's "true Catholicism".

My point, I guess, is that when EO object to the "uniatism" of Eastern Catholicism, ECs ought to be sympathetic since they themselves object to the "uniatism" of latinized Eastern Catholicism.

I hate to say it but as much as the Popes have beautiful words about unity, charity, and equality; the way the Vatican operates, it is still clear that the Vatican machinery wants its thumb on the eastern Catholic Churches. I love the Melkite Church deeply and I respect the patrimony of the Roman Church and its Traditions, but I think that significant reforms in the Vatican and in its treatment of the eastern Churches are necessary before there can be reunion. And until the Pope renounces papal infallibility and supremacy, the Vatican will always act as it does in trying to control the whole Church.

The Vatican is more than the Pope. The present pope is trying to revise the curia. This is the problem right now. The curia exerts too much power. For all the authority and power the pope is supposed to have, he can't control the curia. It is not the infallibility and the supremacy but the curia.